Or did I miss something?

I admit that it’s not a particularly strong basis on which to form public policy! Even less so from a man who used to be our health minister.

And apologies to Skeptic – I didn’t notice your response above until confessions referred to it. Your links certainly do make a strong case – although I obviously haven’t read any critical analysis of the points raised.

So what’s next on the banning agenda? I hear the studies are pretty conclusive about allowing your kids to eat too much junk food – does $250 per mars bar sound about right?

Mondo: a lot of those earlier studies measured children’s exposure to tobacco smoke per se. Once you start measuring levels of children exposed in closed confines, the intake is even greater as skeptic’s comment says.

Abbott has used the common faulty logic that says “smoking is not harmful because my dad smoked a pack a day all his life and died at 90.” it’s devoid of common sense.

I’ve stated reading some of the studies but it’s hard going for a non-scientist like me. Many of the studies on the first page do seem to indicate a link between child exposure to passive smoke and illness.

I could well be wrong, but my understanding is that smoking has been banned in pubs and clubs because of the health risks posed to workers in those clubs. There is research linking prolonged and intense exposure to second-hand smoke to long-term health issues, but I don’t think that same research applies to short-term exposure of kids in cars.

Look – I’m not a smoker, but I do believe that our freedom as individuals should not be curtailed without solid evidence that doing so will achieve some greater public good.

I’m just wondering if any such evidence exists in this instance . . . .

in any case, googling turns up heaps of studies.

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=passive+smoking+and+children&num=100&hl=en&lr=&output=search

take your pick.

And consider research into whether multi-tasking while driving leads to a higher incidence of accidents… :p

In the ABC news item this story is linked to is this quote:

Long time anti-smoking campaigner Professor Mike Daube from Curtin University disagrees.

“So there are clear implications for the health of children, asthmatic children, children with other respiratory symptoms.”

And a quick google brought up these results:

http://www.quit.org.au/quit/FandI/fandi/c04.htm

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_596/ASH_596.html

http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_597/ASH_597.html

However it would be equally valid to turn that same analysis back on those who support the policy. Are they basing their policy position on research, expert opinion or fact, or are they also just going with their gut (smoking is bad, m’kay)?

Does anyone know?

Do you actually know of any research, expert opinion or statistics that show smoking in cars with kids leads to health problems?

I only ask because, while it seems logical to conclude that such evidence exists, I’m not personally aware of any of it. I assume this law was passed from a body of conclusive evidence showing the clear danger of smoking in cars – but I don’t know that.

umm, maybe the increase of cars on the roads at holiday times.

what is it with the right and sheer lunacy?

We know it might’ve helped, Tone…

“And he cites double demerit points for speeding on public holidays as another example of an overbearing nanny state.

“What makes these actions intrinsically more harmful because they happen on a long weekend or at Christmas or at Easter?” he said.”

*facepalm*

I don’t know Tony, ever notice the easter and Christmas road toll each year? How it is slightly higher than non-holiday times.